On Thu, Jan 15, 1998 at 01:05:45AM +0100, Remco Blaakmeer wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Adam P. Harris wrote: > > > > > [Sorry to be offtopic a bit] > > > > "Remco" == Remco Blaakmeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I also think the > > > link /bin/sh could be perfectly managed by the `alternatives' > > > system, with the `smallest' shell (in terms of memory and processor > > > requirements) having the highest priority. > > > > How about "most standard", i.e., most in accordance w/ POSIX? ;) > > Anyone have any information about the POSIXability of different > > shells, their indices of POSIXal correctness? Of course, bash behaves > > different when invoked as /bin/sh compared to /bin/bash. > > I think these two criteria would set the same shell at the highest > priority. The one that has the least (or none) features that are not in > POSIX would be the smallest, I think. Of course, every shell providing > 'posix-shell' would have to be at least POSIX-correct.
I think that the shell should also run in "POSIX-mode" if it is invoked as sh - bash does this, I don't know about the others. I don't think it's very nice if we have to start doing things like "sh --posix ..." to get a POSIX shell. Adrian email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Debian Linux - www.debian.org http://www.poboxes.com/adrian.bridgett | Because bloated, unstable PGP key available on public key servers | operating systems are from MS
